frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Should hate speech be illegal?

Debate Information

I was wondering if you think that hate speech should be illegal.
«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • Argument Topic: No it needs to stay legal.

    I think banking hate speech would be a violation of free speech rights.
  • anarchist100anarchist100 713 Pts   -  
    No it should not, a Free and open dialog is essential for the pursuit of truth to flourish in a society, and without that it is impossible for truth to guide society.

    Any harm caused to an individual or group by speech is meaningless compared to the importance of Freedom of speech for civilization.
  • anarchist100anarchist100 713 Pts   -  
    I think banking hate speech would be a violation of free speech rights.
    Aren't you the person who just said that we should ban people defending the police because it causes fighting? You're not very consistent in your views.
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -   edited October 31
    But hate speech technically is illegal in most countries only American Whackos get all b-utt hurt if they haven't the " right" to screech publicly " burn all n-iggers out"  " gas Jews to death " ," euthanise handicapped kids" etc  etc 

    Why is it so important to idi-otic Americans that they have this " wonderful right " to issue death threats , incite people to murder ,maim  injure and destroy those they hate?

    Either way it's funny Americans think they have freedom of speech to say hateful things and get away with it, they don't...
    Try say on a plane in the US " I want all ni-ggers off the plane " or how about in your job saying " gas all jews who work here"

    Every utterance you make in the US has consequences so you in only certain ways can say what you wish 

    Jeez you cannot even address someone in the US as Mr, Mrs , Miss etc  etc in case you misgender them so even free speech in the US is extremely limited and a popular myth the deluded assume they have where gender terms are enforced by ever growing WOKE wannabees all over the US 
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4800 Pts   -  
    Hate speech cannot be made illegal in a consistent way: outlawing hate speech would be an expression of hatred towards hate speech, which, by the proposal, is to be made illegal.
  • jackjack 81 Pts   -  
    I was wondering if you think that hate speech should be illegal.
    Hello the:

    Our national interests are sex and hate.  If we can't talk about either one of 'em, life would be BORING, BORING, BORING!

    excon
  • anarchist100anarchist100 713 Pts   -   edited October 31
    Dee said:
    But hate speech technically is illegal in most countries only American Whackos get all b-utt hurt if they haven't the " right" to screech publicly " burn all n-iggers out"  " gas Jews to death " ," euthanise handicapped kids" etc  etc 

    Why is it so important to idi-otic Americans that they have this " wonderful right " to issue death threats , incite people to murder ,maim  injure and destroy those they hate?

    Either way it's funny Americans think they have freedom of speech to say hateful things and get away with it, they don't...
    Try say on a plane in the US " I want all ni-ggers off the plane " or how about in your job saying " gas all jews who work here"

    Every utterance you make in the US has consequences so you in only certain ways can say what you wish 

    Jeez you cannot even address someone in the US as Mr, Mrs , Miss etc  etc in case you misgender them so even free speech in the US is extremely limited and a popular myth the deluded assume they have where gender terms are enforced by ever growing WOKE wannabees all over the US 
    As I've said before, Free speech is necessary for a Free and open dialog to exist, which is far more important than anyone's feelings. We can have a society that prioritizes truth, or one that prioritizes kindness, it's clear which one your country is, America is not perfect in this regard, but at least it's not like Europe, where there is a long list of things you can not say out of fear of being arrested or fined, there is a huge difference between certain people whining about what you say, (people like you) and people actually preventing you from saying it.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 988 Pts   -  
    @Dee. Yes they can have consequences in the private sector but speech protected under the first amendment cannot be prosecuted by the government.

    The reason hate speech shouldn't be prosecuted is because it leads to authoritarian limits on the spread of ideas including good ones.

    Just think what would have happened if governments back in the day limited the idea of freeing slaves or considering black people as people.  Plenty of people would have agreed with that.

    History shows we do not live in perfect moral societies, limiting free speech prevents societies from progressing.  This is not worth people getting offended, just put on your big boy pants.
    anarchist100
  • It depends on what one means by "hate speech." There is nothing wrong with expressing hatred toward oppression, hating political decisions, or even engaging in lighthearted banter.

    However, if hate speech is a direct precept of hate crime or extremism then that is a different story. Not only does this go against the fundamental values of several nations but also violates what the USA stands for.



  • piloteerpiloteer 1547 Pts   -  
    @theinfectedmaster

    Making hate speech illegal won't stop hate. 
  • piloteerpiloteer 1547 Pts   -   edited November 1
    Dee said:
    •" burn all n-iggers out" 
    •" gas Jews to death "
    ,•" euthanise handicapped kids"  
    • " gas all jews who work here"

    The statements you made are not legal in the US. Those remarks would be called threats of violence and are not protected by the constitution. Hate speech cannot be constitutionally protected if it is coupled with threats of violence. We can express hatred toward any social groupings, but we cannot use violent rhetoric or threats against anybody.

     

    Every utterance you make in the US has consequences so you in only certain ways can say what you wish 

    This is why there is no need for legislation barring hate speech, because even though it is our right to say ignorant $hit, it is everybody else's right to not ever hire you, or let you in their place of business, or home, or establishment, or not even treat you with common dignity because of the things you've said. So even though you can say those things, it can still ruin your life.           
    ZeusAres42
  • BoganBogan 203 Pts   -  
    Freedom of speech is the keystone of democracy.    Within democracies, every person must have the right to freely discuss any issue in order to decide which side is correct, and which candidate supports their opinions.

    Australia was once a free country but is not a free country anymore.       I never knew that democracies were supposed to have state ideologies which must never be questioned, but that is how it is in Australia today under Section C of the Racial Discrimination Act.   Under this Act, it is illegal to "insult, defame, or intimidate" any person on the basis of their racial, ethnic, or religious identity.

    Now a few of the more low IQ members of this topic would probably support that, right?     Okay, so let's see how it works in practice in Australia.    First, it got extended to "protect" people according to their declared gender.      Cant criticise those dimwits who think that they are a different gender to what their own biology tells them.      Next, it only works with non whites.    You can say any damned thing you like about white people and that never raises a legal eyebrow.    But when an aboriginal woman was charged with calling a white neighbour a "white slut" the judge found her not guilty because aborigines are the poor oppressed who are just venting their anger at their white oppressors.       

    Next came the Queensland University study room incident.    You remember how in south Africa they had white and non white water bubblers?     Well, in Queensland university they had aboriginal only study rooms.    A group of white students, who were roaming the corridors looking for a place to study, found the unsignposted "Aboriginal study room" (which was empty) and proceeded to study.    They were accosted by the rooms "manager" (which is a government non job given exclusively to aboriginal people in order to pretend that aboriginals can work) who told them in no uncertain terms to get out.    The students did that, and simply commented on social media that Queensland University was combatting racism with racism.     On hearing what the students had done, the Aboriginal caretaker then took the matter to the Queensland Anti Discriminatiion Board to have the students prosecuted under 18C.  Oddly enough, this Anti Discrimination Board, staffed with leftist public service luvvies, is supposed to protect free speech.    This board decided to prosecute the students over what almost everybody in Australia considered the most trivial criticism of Queensland Universities hypocritical position.     The plight of the students caused national interest before they were hauled before the court where a sensible judge threw out the case.   To those who think that this was trivial itself, the students were only told of their prosecution a year after the event, a few weeks before their examinations.  

    Next came Muslims marching through Sydney in a violent demonstration and all because Nike had some patterns on a new style of running shoe which, with a bit of imagination, could have looked like the word "Allah" in Arabic script.     The Muslims marched under the banners 'BEHEAD ALL THOSE WHO INSULT ALLAH!"     Well, dearie me, here was the Sydney Muslims marching under a banner inciting extreme violence towards anyone who they felt insulted their prophet.   They must have got arrested and charged, right?   Wrong.      Like Aboriginals, Muslims are a protected species in Australia, and they can damn near do anything or say anything they like without the same laws applying to them, that apply to white Australians.

    Next came a formal dinner with the Prime Minister of Australia and the head of the "moderate" Islamic Council where the "moderate" head Imam told the PM that homosexuals should be executed.    Once again, ladies and gentleman, not only does 18C not apply to Muslims, even laws inciting violence does not apply to them, either.

    Look, how did Australia turn from a free country into an increasingly oppressive country with one law for whites and another law for non whites.    Well, it is all because of socialism and multiculturalism.     The Left side of politics knew that most white people were just too smart to accept a left wing socialist government where the government and it's bureaucracy controlled everything.   So, they need to import millions of generally low IQ people into Australia from low IQ races and ethnicities, who were dumb enough to accept their Brave New World.

    Of course, crime and welfare dependency went through the roof in Australia, so the lefties did everything they could to protect their new and dysfunctional electorate from informed criticism.        18C had to be enacted to shut the white Australians up.      The Left could not have white Australians discussing how the new arrivals were sending Australian society down the toilet.
    anarchist100
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -   edited November 1
    @anarchist100 ,

    but at least it's not like Europe, where there is a long list of things you can not say out of fear of being arrested or fined

    Ok I will play , give me the long list please?

    Tell me who’s being arrested in my country so far for speaking out? You don’t actually know what hate speech is do you?In the US you lose your job if you don’t use correct gender pronouns 

    Every utterance you make has consequences no matter where you live 
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -   edited November 1
    @piloteer

    The statements you made are not legal in the US. Those remarks would be called threats of violence and are not protected by the constitution. Hate speech cannot be constitutionally protected if it is coupled with threats of violence. We can express hatred toward any social groupings, but we cannot use violent rhetoric or threats against 


    I know but that’s hate speech right , people like the op somehow think America has remarkable leeway regards freedom of speech it doesn’t , it’s a popular myth that’s all 



    This is why there is no need for legislation barring hate speech, because even though it is our right to say ignorant $hit, it is everybody else's right to not ever hire you, or let you in their place of business, or home, or establishment, or not even treat you with common dignity because of the things you've said. So even though you can say those things, it can still ruin your life.           

    I agree with what you’ve said people like the OP assumes that the US is somehow superior to Europe regards freedom of speech it’s not  

    People where I live say ignorant hateful all the time but as you pointed out like in the US doing so can ruin your life 

    Give it a few years and let’s see how it pans out worldwide as woke culture deems every utterance offensive 

    All around the world people are getting fired /disciplined /outed for not using gender pronouns 
  • BoganBogan 203 Pts   -  
    1.   Criticizing Kim jong Un is hate speech.
    2.  Criticizing Adolph Hitler is hate speech.
    3.   Criticizing the Communist Party is hate speech.
    4.   Criticizing Pol Pot is hate speech.
    5.   Criticizing dysfunctional minorities is hate speech.

    Same absolutist mindset, just different ideologies. 
      
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -   edited November 1
    @MichaelElpers


    Yes they can have consequences in the private sector but speech protected under the first amendment cannot be prosecuted by the government.


    I get that in conversations with others you can hate away to your hearts content happens everywhere , free speech in the US is limited like everywhere else

    In the USA there is a legal doctrine that at some point, speech becomes conduct, and conduct can be regulated.


    The reason hate speech shouldn't be prosecuted is because it leads to authoritarian limits on the spread of ideas including good ones.

    This from you a guy who thinks women who abort should be jailed and men like you who call their home their castle see womens bodies as government and public property to make laws on ….man oh man 

    Well in the US limits to the freedom of speech exist time , place , manner apply to all speech , they are all legal restrictions 

    Just think what would have happened if governments back in the day limited the idea of freeing slaves or considering black people as people.  Plenty of people would have agreed with that.


    Yes but plenty of people did agree with that you guys were segregating blacks up to the 60’s we all know societies evolve stop stating the obvious 



    History shows we do not live in perfect moral societies, limiting free speech prevents societies from progressing.

    I’m all for free speech hate speech I’m not a fan of 

      This is not worth people getting offended, just put on your big boy pants.

    Well yeah I’m strange that way like the few decent Germans who didn’t like hate speech directed at Jews but if that’s your thing and it makes you feel like a “big boy” good for you 

    What happened your big boy pants when you sulk , wail and want authoritarian government to jail women for abortion ?

    I’ve said it before your cognitive dissonance is pretty out there 
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @Bogan


    1.   Criticizing Kim jong Un is hate speech.
    2.  Criticizing Adolph Hitler is hate speech.
    3.   Criticizing the Communist Party is hate speech.
    4.   Criticizing Pol Pot is hate speech.
    5.   Criticizing dysfunctional minorities is hate speech.


    Right got that , so film , food , political , social ,artistic critics are all indulging in hate speech ……gee thanks for the heads up mate
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42


    It depends on what one means by "hate speech." 

    Exactly , it differs depending on who you talk to 

    There is nothing wrong with expressing hatred toward oppression, hating political decisions, or even engaging in lighthearted banter. 

    I agree , I’m all for it

    However, if hate speech is a direct precept of hate crime or extremism then that is a different story. Not only does this go against the fundamental values of several nations but also violates what the USA stands for. 

    True , I’m not really sure what the US stands for 
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 988 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    I didn't say anything hateful.
    There is no legal doctrine that speech can be prosecuted based on it being hateful or offensive.  That's what hate speech is.

    This isn't about abortion you didn't actually address my points within the confines of this debate.

    Societies that evolve the quickest allow for free speech and debate.  Limiting speech would have only slowed down the progress.

    The problem is you have stated no paradigm to choose whom should regulate what is considered hate speech..  If your going by majority vote or government, you most certainly would have censored the few decent Germans you just mentioned. You will always be giving power to those in power harming the people these laws seemingly try to protect.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 988 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42

    "However, if hate speech is a direct precept of hate crime or extremism then that is a different story. Not only does this go against the fundamental values of several nations but also violates what the USA stands for."

    Only if it is violent or harassment.  Note that there have been extreme positions through history that were actually good, additionally many "values" Western societies have had in history have been extremely flawed.  Limiting speech to only that which is deemed not extremist, keeps a nation stagnant eliminating the good and the bad ideas.
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers

    I didn't say anything hateful.

    I didn’t say you did 

    There is no legal doctrine that speech can be prosecuted based on it being hateful or offensive.  That's what hate speech is.

    There is outside the US . I know what hate speech is the US does not get to dictate to others how they define it and implement it 

    What’s more, your government has placed a number of limitations on free speech for the public good. 


    This isn't about abortion you didn't actually address my points within the confines of this debate.

    It’s clearly demonstrates your cognitive dissonance  Of course I addressed them your main one being….

     limiting free speech prevents societies from progressing.


    Switching hate speech for free speech Iis so typical of you ….

    ……I know but every society through individuals  limit it , you cannot say certain things mostly any where without your words having consequences, if speech were truly free an individual would not by law be able to sack you for saying “gas all Jews “ in the workplace 


    Societies that evolve the quickest allow for free speech and debate. 

    Sure broadly speaking yes  But hate speech is free speech so tell me how that worked out for Jews as Hitler and his leadership kept up a running campaign of hate speech so it became a societal norm to express hatred towards the Jews? 

     Limiting speech would have only slowed down the progress.

    Limiting hate speech in Nazi Germany would have slowed down progress do explain?

    The problem is you have stated no paradigm to choose whom should regulate what is considered hate speech.. 

    That is yes a problem illegal hate speech for me is clearly defined under EU law (1) as the public incitement to violence or hatred on the basis or certain characteristics , including race , colour , religion , descent  and national or ethnic origin

    Maybe you guys would not have still been segregating the blacks in the 60’s if you had hate speech laws , what do you think?


    If your going by majority vote or government, you most certainly would have censored the few decent Germans you just mentioned. 

    So you think all Germans had a collective murderous hatred of the Jews before Hitler came on the scene? 


    You will always be giving power to those in power harming the people these laws seemingly try to protect.

    But again tell me how this wonderful concept of allowing hate speech worked out for the blacks of the US prior to the 60’s ?

    Coloured water fountain , coloured waiting room , coloured toilets …..isn’t the right to hate speech wonderful?

  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 988 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    You're initial response brought America into it so yes I provided American law stance.  I didn't say everyone has to do it this way, although they should.

    I didn't switch hate speech for free speech.  I said limiting free speech...hate speech laws are a limit to free speech.
    The government can't prosecute you for saying something like I hate jews or any other racist saying unless it's violent.

    There are a whole lot of factors that lead to the German treatment of Jews to peg it down to solely hate speech is disingenuous. This is not to mention that you're expectation is that hate speech laws would have actually been implemented to protect them; kind of like thinking hate speech would have included blacks in the 1800s. I'd argue it was the censorship of ideas and ability to protect oneself that lead to this catastrophe.

    I think blacks would have never been included under hate speech laws period.  If anything it's much more likely that speech fighting for the rights of blacks would have been excluded.

    What your doing is looking at immoralities of the past and using what you know currently know to protect them under hate speech laws. The thing is, it's much harder to pick out the immoralities occuirng under one's own time period. Hate speech or other non violent limits to free speech will rarely protect those who under current societal construction are not protected.

    I'll give an example.  Let's say in the future certain animals are deemed to be valued as persons because of new philosophy or science..  Do you think hate speech laws now would include animals?  No because the majority of the time most people are ignorant of the immoralities occuring during their own time.

    Additionally what is not mentioned here is that limiting hate speech actually can prevent people from improving.  For example if a racist is censored, he may never express this now illegal opinion.  Instead he still feels this way secretly and never actually gets challenged on how his ideas are garbage.
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers

     didn't say everyone has to do it this way, although they should.

    Why should they? Do you have no definition of hate speech under American law?

    I didn't switch hate speech for free speech.

    Well yes you  did more than once 

      I said limiting free speech...hate speech laws are a limit to free speech.

    A necessary and fair limit under the EU I quoted , you guys need to catch up 

    The government can't prosecute you for saying something like I hate jews or any other racist saying unless it's violent.

    Depends on the time , place and manner you do it according to American law. Anyone can say that in any society but every time there will be consequences from someone so what’s the point ?


    There are a whole lot of factors that lead to the German treatment of Jews to peg it down to solely hate speech is disingenuous. 

    Stop being disingenuous I didn’t peg  it down to solely hate speech but it was a main driver 

    This is not to mention that you're expectation is that hate speech laws would have actually been implemented to protect them; kind of like thinking hate speech would have included blacks in the 1800s. I'd argue it was the censorship of ideas and ability to protect oneself that lead to this catastrophe.

    Americans whites were granted legally sanctioned privileges and rights blacks were denied , hate speech was a societal norm protected by government , this hate speech you still want protected 



    What your doing is looking at immoralities of the past and using what you know currently know to protect them under hate speech laws. 

    I can take example under the present if you wish 

    The thing is, it's much harder to pick out the immoralities occuirng under one's own time period. Hate speech or other non violent limits to free speech will rarely protect those who under current societal construction are not protected.

    Well hate speech does offer protection in Europe but I get it  those in the US are not entitled to such protections 

    I'll give an example.  Let's say in the future certain animals are deemed to be valued as persons because of new philosophy or science..  Do you think hate speech laws now would include animals?  No because the majority of the time most people are ignorant of the immoralities occuring during their own time.


    But we can only live in the now , using a wrong gender pronoun in 20 years time might get you executed who knows?

    Additionally what is not mentioned here is that limiting hate speech actually can prevent people from improving.  

    Allowing certain hate speech can damage greatly those who have to suffer from it and have no recourse under law

    For example if a racist is censored, he may never express this now illegal opinion.

    A racist can and they do appear on various media platforms debating such issues , I never said opinions are illegal so your straw man fails 

      Instead he still feels this way secretly and never actually gets challenged on how his ideas are garbage.

    Everyone I think feels certain ways secretly but just don’t voice it which I think is just as well don’t you?

    Do you naively believe a racist through debate will change his mind ? It’s exactly like a believer in a god very few are persuaded by logical arguments 
  • Luigi7255Luigi7255 593 Pts   -  
    I wouldn't give a straight answer, then again, I am speaking to somebody who says children should be able to marry.

    I'd define hate speech as threats against any specific group of people (ex. Kanye's comments as of recently). Any arguments for or against something, no matter how butthurt someone is by said opinion, should be allowed. Threats, on the other hand, shouldn't.
    "I will never change who I am just because you do not approve."
  • @Luigi7255 I don't think anyone under 15 should be allowed to get married though. I think they have had enough life experiences to where that could be possible.
  • @Luigi7255 I also don't like to have popular opinions in society either.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1547 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    I wasn't aware the person who initiated this thread was misinformed about US laws regarding free speech and their limitations. I kind of get the feeling like most European countries are pretty much the same in regards to where free speech ends and vicious threats begin. I know Germany and a couple other countries have outlawed holocaust denial, but that's probably for strict anti-nazi policies to ensure that it is known that their government will not tolerate nazi sympathizers, but unfortunately, there are still plenty of neo-nazi political groups in Germany and across Europe just like there are in the US. So even with tighter restrictions on free speech in Germany, there are still people there who would love to pick up right where the nazis left off.   

    There is a paper thin line between straightforward hate speech, and threats, but just so it's clear, the US supreme court does have a legal precedent for what is and isn't protected speech. In a rhetorical manner, it can be hard to differentiate between hate speech and threats because they both sound equally horrible, but sounding horrible is not a crime in and of itself. 

    We could also entertain the point about what constitutes hate speech in regards to how unpopular certain forms of hate are compared to others. For instance, not too many people get emotionally offended when someone says something like 'I hate pedophiles and wished they never existed'. It's not necessarily unpopular to bash on pedos, but it's unpopular to express hatred toward the LGTB community. It can also be pointed out that it's a serious hindrance on free speech if one cannot express extreme dislike for people, or businesses, or anything in general that can be hated. Hate is not always directed toward people. I do not hate Christians, but I hate the immoral things some Christians do in the name of their Lord.              
    Dee
  • anarchist100anarchist100 713 Pts   -   edited November 1
    Dee said:
    @anarchist100 ,

    but at least it's not like Europe, where there is a long list of things you can not say out of fear of being arrested or fined

    Ok I will play , give me the long list please?

    Tell me who’s being arrested in my country so far for speaking out? You don’t actually know what hate speech is do you?In the US you lose your job if you don’t use correct gender pronouns 

    Every utterance you make has consequences no matter where you live 
    You literally have people going to prison for stating an opinion on a historical event.

    If people can't speak an opinion without fear of going to prison, regardless of where they say something, you live in a society that has no chance of having a Free and open dialog on issues, which is a society that is not going to be guided by truth but rather by kindness. A Free and open dialog is how society finds the truth, and that matters more than the Whites, the Jews, the Africans, the Asians, the Native Americans, the straight people or the gay people.

    America is not perfect here, but you literally have people going to prison for speech, so stop trying to act like it's the same.
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100

    You literally have people going to prison for stating an opinion on a historical event.

    Name these people? Show me what prisons their in ……you also stated …. America is not perfect in this regard, but at least it's not like Europe, where there is a long list of things you can not say out of fear of being arrested or fined, 

    Show me the “long list “ of things I cannot say?

    If people can't speak an opinion without fear of going to prison, regardless of where they say something, you live in a society that has no chance of having a Free and open dialog on issues

     But you can speak out we do it all the time , you really are a very ignorant but sadly typical of a large proportion of Americans 

    , which is a society that is not going to be guided by truth but rather by kindness. A Free and open dialog is how society finds the truth, and that matters more than the Whites, the Jews, the Africans, the Asians, the Native Americans, the straight people or the gay people.

    What are you on about ?

    America is not perfect here, but you literally have people going to prison for speech, so stop trying to act like it's the same.

    Prove it ? Show me this long list of things we cannot say and then produce the long list of people in prision?
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -   edited November 1
    @piloteer


    I wasn't aware the person who initiated this thread was misinformed about US laws regarding free speech and their limitations. I kind of get the feeling like most European countries are pretty much the same in regards to where free speech ends and vicious threats begin. I know Germany and a couple other countries have outlawed holocaust denial, but that's probably for strict anti-nazi policies to ensure that it is known that their government will not tolerate nazi sympathizers, but unfortunately, there are still plenty of neo-nazi political groups in Germany and across Europe just like there are in the US. So even with tighter restrictions on free speech in Germany, there are still people there who would love to pick up right where the nazis left off.   

    I believe the OP is using this as an alt account , I may be wrong but I don’t think so 

    The O P claims to be American if he is he’s extremely ignorant about the laws in his own country not for the first time either 

    BTW the OP is a Holocaust denier along with his hero David Icke 

    Yes there are laws against Holocaust denial in Europe I’ve no problem with it to be honest I cannot see any societal advantage to allowing it 

    There is a paper thin line between straightforward hate speech, and threats, but just so it's clear, the US supreme court does have a legal precedent for what is and isn't protected speech. In a rhetorical manner, it can be hard to differentiate between hate speech and threats because they both sound equally horrible, but sounding horrible is not a crime in and of itself. 

    Yes I agree with what you said and our free speech is pretty much like yours in the US 

    We could also entertain the point about what constitutes hate speech in regards to how unpopular certain forms of hate are compared to others. For instance, not too many people get emotionally offended when someone says something like 'I hate pedophiles and wished they never existed'. It's not necessarily unpopular to bash on pedos, but it's unpopular to express hatred toward the LGTB community. It can also be pointed out that it's a serious hindrance on free speech if one cannot express extreme dislike for people, or businesses, or anything in general that can be hated. Hate is not always directed toward people. I do not hate Christians, but I hate the immoral things some Christians do in the name of their Lord.        
         

    Yes again I’m on the same page it’s a very tricky thing and again yes I can hate most  anything I want over here and express it 

    Thanks for your post it’s very fair and balanced 
    piloteer
  • anarchist100anarchist100 713 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    @anarchist100

    You literally have people going to prison for stating an opinion on a historical event.

    Name these people? Show me what prisons their in ……you also stated …. America is not perfect in this regard, but at least it's not like Europe, where there is a long list of things you can not say out of fear of being arrested or fined, 

    Show me the “long list “ of things I cannot say?

    If people can't speak an opinion without fear of going to prison, regardless of where they say something, you live in a society that has no chance of having a Free and open dialog on issues

     But you can speak out we do it all the time , you really are a very ignorant but sadly typical of a large proportion of Americans 

    , which is a society that is not going to be guided by truth but rather by kindness. A Free and open dialog is how society finds the truth, and that matters more than the Whites, the Jews, the Africans, the Asians, the Native Americans, the straight people or the gay people.

    What are you on about ?

    America is not perfect here, but you literally have people going to prison for speech, so stop trying to act like it's the same.

    Prove it ? Show me this long list of things we cannot say and then produce the long list of people in prision?
    Ernst Zundel sentenced to 5 years for Holocaust denial | CBC News

    David Irving jailed for Holocaust denial | World news | The Guardian

    Man jailed in France for online hate speech against Nice attack victims | Euronews

    Facebook user jailed for hate comments – DW – 10/17/2016

    Germany Raids Homes of 36 People Accused of Hateful Postings Over Social Media - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

    British Police Just Imprisoned A Man For Posting Mean Things About Muslims On Facebook | The Daily Wire

    British Police Arrest At Least 3,395 People for 'Offensive' Online Comments in One Year (breitbart.com)

    71 Year Old Christian Pastor Is Arrested For Preaching God's Word (welovetrump.com)

    Ireland to Jail 'Hate Speech' Offenders for Up to Five Years (breitbart.com)

    UK Court Sends Man to Jail for Nazi Joke, Proving How Valuable Our Free Speech Rights Are – RedState

    Man guilty of hate crime for filming pug's 'Nazi salutes' - BBC News

    U.K. Pastor Arrested After Anti-Same-Sex Marriage Comments Back on Stump With Politician's Support (newsweek.com)

    Nearly 100 Jailed in France for ‘Defending Terrorism’ and Other Speech Crimes | National Vanguard

    Hate Speech: U.K. Political Leader Arrested for Quoting Winston Churchill - The New American

    Arrests for offensive Facebook and Twitter posts soar in London | The Independent | The Independent

    Germany's 'Nazi Grandma' given jail term for Holocaust denial - BBC News



    America is not perfect in this regard, they had Alex Jones sued for his speech, but compared to Europe, it's a paradise of Liberty.
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -   edited November 1
    @anarchist100

    America is not perfect in this regard, they had Alex Jones sued for his speech, but compared to Europe, it's a paradise of Liberty.

    A “paradise of liberty “ LOL where for kids to feel safe you need armed guards in schools …..you’re a funny little fellow 

    You should read your own links nearly every one  incited people to crime , which is the very same in laws that apply in the US 

    Read from your own links which you never read ….. Under the rules as proposed, those found guilty of “any intentional or reckless communication or behaviour that is likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or persons because they are associated with a protected characteristic” would face up to five years in jail.

    That’s the very same laws that apply in the US 

    Listen I know you and your hero David Icke want the “right “ to hate Jews and deny the Holocaust happened you won’t get away with it over here and long may that continue 




  • anarchist100anarchist100 713 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    @anarchist100

    America is not perfect in this regard, they had Alex Jones sued for his speech, but compared to Europe, it's a paradise of Liberty.

    A “paradise of liberty “ LOL where for kids to feel safe you need armed guards in schools …..you’re a funny little fellow 

    You should read your own links nearly every one  incited people to crime , which is the very same in laws that apply in the US 

    Listen I know you and your hero David Icke want the “right “ to hate Jews and deny the Holocaust happened you won’t get away with it over here and long may that continue 




    I read the links, It looks like you didn't though.

    I'd rather live in a country where half of the children get shot than a country where discourse is controlled by the government.
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -   edited November 2
    @anarchist100

    I read the links, It looks like you didn't though.

    No , you didn’t, as usual you rushed onto Google trying to find something to support your initial claim as in ….. but at least it's not like Europe, where there is a long list of things you can not say out of fear of being arrested or fined

    Wheres this long list ? I’m still waiting?

    I'd rather live in a country where half of the children get shot than a country where discourse is controlled by the government.

    Well you got your wish on kids getting shot you guys are world leaders …congrats on that …… “discourse” is debate you pathetic ignoramus you and David Icke wanting to screech “gas all Jews “is not “discourse”

    Government either way control your speech unless you think you can vent hate speech in government run schools , hospitals or institutions. Also you can use hate speech anywhere in the world and but it will have consequences if you think it won’t in the US you’re only lying to yourself 

    I’m still laughing over your belief that screeching “gas all Jews “ is “discourse …..seriously ?
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2233 Pts   -   edited November 2
    Dee said:
    @ZeusAres42




    However, if hate speech is a direct precept of hate crime or extremism then that is a different story. Not only does this go against the fundamental values of several nations but also violates what the USA stands for. 

    True , I’m not really sure what the US stands for 
    I may be mistaken but I am assuming they are very similar to us in the UK which are Democracy, Rule of Law, Respect and Tolerance, and Individual Liberty. I will at some point read the US constitution but right now I am pretty sure extremism and radicalization are not protected under the constitution as that would be a direct denotation of terrorism. @Dee




    Dee



  • MayCaesar said:
    Hate speech cannot be made illegal in a consistent way: outlawing hate speech would be an expression of hatred towards hate speech, which, by the proposal, is to be made illegal.

    An expression of hatred toward hate speech as decided by who? @MayCaesar? ;)



  • anarchist100anarchist100 713 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    @anarchist100

    I read the links, It looks like you didn't though.

    No , you didn’t, as usual you rushed onto Google trying to find something to support your initial claim as in ….. but at least it's not like Europe, where there is a long list of things you can not say out of fear of being arrested or fined

    Wheres this long list ? I’m still waiting?

    I'd rather live in a country where half of the children get shot than a country where discourse is controlled by the government.

    Well you got your wish on kids getting shot you guys are world leaders …congrats on that …… “discourse” is debate you pathetic ignoramus you and David Icke wanting to screech “gas all Jews “is not “discourse”

    Government either way control your speech unless you think you can vent hate speech in government run schools , hospitals or institutions. Also you can use hate speech anywhere in the world and but it will have consequences if you think it won’t in the US you’re only lying to yourself 

    I’m still laughing over your belief that screeching “gas all Jews “ is “discourse …..seriously ?
    There is a long list of terrorist attacks, and Nazi atrocities, and none of these you are allowed to promote in your country.

    And yes, "gas all jews is discourse" the idea that all jews should be gassed is an opinion, it's a morally repugnant opinion, that alone does not make it wrong, if we are to be focused on finding the truth, we have open dialog about things without silencing people based on feelings.

    And before you whine and complain about it, yes of course we should not gas all jews, but I shouldn't even have to say that, you should be able to acknowledge the rest of my statement without declaring it invalid because of one opinion expressed that you deem immoral with no consideration for what actually matters regarding it, the truth of it.
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -   edited November 3
    @anarchist100

    There is a long list of terrorist attacks, and Nazi atrocities, and none of these you are allowed to promote in your country.

    Yes you cannot “promote “ terrorist attacks and Nazi atrocities in any country in the world 

    And yes, "gas all jews is discourse" the idea that all jews should be gassed is an opinion, it's a morally repugnant opinion, that alone does not make it wrong, if we are to be focused on finding the truth, we have open dialog about things without silencing people based on feelings.


    Screeching “gas all Jews” is your idea of debate ? Well yes you and fellow Holocaust denier David Icke would say so……


    debate
    /dɪˈbeɪt/
    noun
    1. a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote.
    Screeching “gas all jews” is “debate “ in your pea brain…….WOW! 

    Screeching “gas all Jews “ is not an invitation to debate or “discourse “ as you put it , do you honestly think members of the Nazi party hate speech was an invite to “discourse “? 

    And before you whine and complain about it,

    Will you look at big brave pretend Anarchist I can see you running home wailing “I called a Jew a K-Ike  to day am I all grown up now and a weal Murican “

    Debating is not “whining “ you foolish child , I know you and David Icke say the Holocaust was a hoax as you both detest Jews and you accuse all Jews who object to being eliminated as “whiners” so I don’t care the childish insults from racist bigots like you and Icke 

    yes of course we should not gas all jews, but I shouldn't even have to say that,

    Yet you and your buddy David Icke detest Jews so you actually should have to say it and apologise for it 

    you should be able to acknowledge the rest of my statement without declaring it invalid because of one opinion expressed that you deem immoral with no consideration for what actually matters regarding it, the truth of it.

    You went on a solo rant trying to prove Americans have more free speech than most when they don’t you’ve swallowed a myth 

    Now instead of dodging can you supply the long list of things I cannot say ?.. but at least it's not like Europe, where there is a long list of things you can not say out of fear of being arrested or fined


    debate
    /dɪˈbeɪt/
    noun
    1. a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote.
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -   edited November 3
    @ZeusAres42

    An expression of hatred toward hate speech as decided by who? 

    Exactly , public hate speech expresses hate and encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race , religion , sex, or sexual orientation 

    What of value comes from allowing people publicly screech “ hang all n-iggers” , “gas all Jews” , “stone to death homos “ ?

    It’s very childish,  Americans think behaving like a bold schoolboy saying “f-ck” in public demonstrates a freedom denied others and shows what a progressive lot they are, it’s all a myth 

    You can utter what you want anywhere in the world but in every country most likely face consequences if the law don’t punish you the public will do it for them , screech “ni- ggers” at a group of blacks in New York and if the police don’t arrest you for a breach of the peace a mob will kick the cr-ap out of you …..carry a placard stating “the Holocaust never happened “ and you will need police protection ….so what is this freedom of speech they imagine they have that’s denied others ?
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -   edited November 3
    @ZeusAres42

    I may be mistaken but I am assuming they are very similar to us in the UK which are Democracy, Rule of Law, Respect and Tolerance, and Individual Liberty
    . I will at some point read the US constitution but right now I am pretty sure extremism and radicalization are not protected under the constitution as that would be a direct denotation of terrorism. 

    Correct , the laws are indeed very similar. Unfortunately it’s the usual favorite game of  we are the greatest country  in the world and have freedoms denied others. 
    There was a parade in the US a while back where a group of Nazis paraded in uniform “because it’s our goddamned right under the best goddamned constitution in the world “ when media interviewed several Americans afterwards and asked for a reaction they all men/women parroted the same utter nonsense as in “ I don’t respect them as people but I respect their right to free speech “ of course this favorite American Christmas cracker motto was uttered through clenched teeth as they uttered it 

    So with childish displays like this they are attemting to say to the world  “look how free we are compared to all those backward countries “ , it’s utter nonsense do people believe that Americans believe their own nonsense ?

    An American child running home and telling his parents “ I called a black boy a ni-gger today”  is hardly told “ I don’t like that you said that son but I respect your right to say it “ yet they pretend when it comes to adults they do all because they want the world to see “look how growled up and mature we are”

    Freedom of speech my a-ss go for a job and mention you’re an Atheist in the US and your chances plummet dramatically 
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 988 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    What you are continually doing here is construing hate speech and calls to violence.
    What would make statements like gassing or hanging a prosecutable statement is the call to violence not the hatefullness of it.  I could not declare that you should murder anyone but I can say that I hate anyone.

    The UK sentenced someone for having his pug give a Nazi salute.  That is an extreme overreach of freedom of speech or expression.

    You also still continue to miss the point on why hate speech laws would haven't protected blacks in the 1800s.  They didn't have rights so in no conceivable way would hate speech laws at the time protected them.  Limits on speech only protect those who are already represented under law. If I stated in the 1800s that slave owners were cruel individuals that were mistreating human beings as property hate speech laws could have determined that to have wronged the slave owner.

    And yes I do believe discourse draws people away from racist ideas, certainly much better than censoring them does. Additionally you always run the risk of censoring extreme ideas that are actually good.

    Any speech that is not a call to violence is just potentially offensive speech and anyone can be offended by anything.

  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 988 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    "the public incitement to violence or hatred on the basis or certain characteristics , including race , colour , religion , descent and national or ethnic origin"

    So are you allowed to express hatred towards racists, rapists?
    Is saying I hate the orange man fall under this because you included his color?

    Youre including the groups you see fit to protect but have no issue excluding others.
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers


    So are you allowed to express hatred towards racists, rapists?

    I can say what I want to anyone but consequences can result 


    Is saying I hate the orange man fall under this because you included his color?

    I’ve never said I hate the orange man , but I can hate anyone I wish 

    Youre including the groups you see fit to protect but have no issue excluding others.

    Well I do have a thing about rapists and racists having said thatI don’t go out of my way to confront them just to say it 
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -   edited November 3
    @MichaelElpers

    What you are continually doing here is construing hate speech and calls to violence.

    No I’m actually not my point is way broader than that , you only have the illusion of the free speech you think unique in the US , your laws are similar to ours 

    What would make statements like gassing or hanging a prosecutable statement is the call to violence not the hatefullness of it.  I could not declare that you should murder anyone but I can say that I hate anyone.

    But you  keep missing the points I’m making you have not got the freedom you think you have to say such in the US 

    The police can and do arrest people for incitement to cause harm , breach of the peace or indeed causing a nuisance , it all depends on who’s interpreting the law and how they view a given situation 

    The UK sentenced someone for having his pug give a Nazi salute.  That is an extreme overreach of freedom of speech or expression.

    Yes the dog raised it paw to “gas the Jews “etc , etc the court took into account his freedom of expression but noted the video linked into other more offensive material.You’re still missing another point it depends on the day who the arresting officer is and how he interprets the law, very same as the US 

    BTW the dog was not a pug it was a German Shepard so that’s the Germans for you 

    You also still continue to miss the point on why hate speech laws would haven't protected blacks in the 1800s.  They didn't have rights so in no conceivable way would hate speech laws at the time protected them.  

    But hate laws would have protected them same as they protect others now 


    And yes I do believe discourse draws people away from racist ideas, certainly much better than censoring them does. 

    Stop abusing language please screeching “gas Jews “ is not “discourse” , never was . Things like this are debated in my country and all over Europe so what are you talking about “censoring them “ ?

    If you think screeching “lynch ni-ggers“ , “gas Jews” or “kill homos “ makes America somehow  a bastion of freedom of speech you’re wrong it only makes Americans look like big kids who think swearing abuse at strangers demonstrates “we are lucky we can screech racist remarks at anyone “ 

    We can do it here also but they’re are consequences very same as there are in the US 

    Additionally you always run the risk of censoring extreme ideas that are actually good.

    But no one in Europe is doing that everything is debated  , Americans disconnect with European matters is staggeringly ignorant to say the least 

    Any speech that is not a call to violence is just potentially offensive speech and anyone can be offended by anything.

    I agree , now tell me the advantages of screeching “gas Jews “ in public places for Americans in general ? That is if you wish to be part of a progressive inclusive society and not the regressive , divisive society your quickly becoming 

    Is it just for a camera shoot where ignorant hicks bellow “ I don’t like what he said but I respect his right to say it  “ and you all nod your heads and agree “Murica is the best goddamned country in da world , freedom of speech baby “

  • anarchist100anarchist100 713 Pts   -   edited November 3
    Dee said:
    @anarchist100

    There is a long list of terrorist attacks, and Nazi atrocities, and none of these you are allowed to promote in your country.

    Yes you cannot “promote “ terrorist attacks and Nazi atrocities in any country in the world 

    And yes, "gas all jews is discourse" the idea that all jews should be gassed is an opinion, it's a morally repugnant opinion, that alone does not make it wrong, if we are to be focused on finding the truth, we have open dialog about things without silencing people based on feelings.


    Screeching “gas all Jews” is your idea of debate ? Well yes you and fellow Holocaust denier David Icke would say so……


    debate
    /dɪˈbeɪt/
    noun
    1. a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote.
    Screeching “gas all jews” is “debate “ in your pea brain…….WOW! 

    Screeching “gas all Jews “ is not an invitation to debate or “discourse “ as you put it , do you honestly think members of the Nazi party hate speech was an invite to “discourse “? 

    And before you whine and complain about it,

    Will you look at big brave pretend Anarchist I can see you running home wailing “I called a Jew a K-Ike  to day am I all grown up now and a weal Murican “

    Debating is not “whining “ you foolish child , I know you and David Icke say the Holocaust was a hoax as you both detest Jews and you accuse all Jews who object to being eliminated as “whiners” so I don’t care the childish insults from racist bigots like you and Icke 

    yes of course we should not gas all jews, but I shouldn't even have to say that,

    Yet you and your buddy David Icke detest Jews so you actually should have to say it and apologise for it 

    you should be able to acknowledge the rest of my statement without declaring it invalid because of one opinion expressed that you deem immoral with no consideration for what actually matters regarding it, the truth of it.

    You went on a solo rant trying to prove Americans have more free speech than most when they don’t you’ve swallowed a myth 

    Now instead of dodging can you supply the long list of things I cannot say ?.. but at least it's not like Europe, where there is a long list of things you can not say out of fear of being arrested or fined


    debate
    /dɪˈbeɪt/
    noun
    1. a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote.
    Sure, screaming gas all jews isn't discourse, (however it isn't going to harm anyone either than possibly the person who does it so it should not be banned) but saying that all jews should be gassed is.

    As I said, being mean does not make something untrue, when you ban people from saying things for any reason, you inhibit that which is necessary for truth to prevail, newsflash, truth is not always nice, finding the truth matters much more than having a nice society.

    You keep saying I'm racist as if it proves me wrong, no it doesn't, even if it were true it wouldn't prove me wrong, it would prove me unkind, which you seem to think is more important than truth, your mentality is the antithesis that one that a decent civilized society is based off of.

    Go back to your safe space while the rest of us try to find out what is true or not without worrying about hurting our little feelings.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 988 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Having similar laws and the same laws are different. I am focusing on legal prosecution for hateful words that are not violence.  You cannot be prosecuted for that in America.

    The comments were directed for the dog, clearly not an open retort or call to violence. It was for comedy, now whether someone finds that funny is opinionated, but that certainly wouldn't have received prosecution in America.

    No, laws wouldn't have protected blacks in the 1800s.  If they could be enslaved in what world do you think they be covered under hate speech laws?

    Again you went back to gas these people or lynch these others.  That could be a call to violence.
    However if someone stated I hate this group or this group should be jailed for XYZ whether or not that is truthful or agreeable that shouldn't be prosecuted no matter how offensive or wrong it may be.
    Violent speech is already not covered under free speech so you dont have to keep repeating why violent spee h should be allowed..
    We have people arguing using the wrong pronoun is violent and hateful speech.  This type of "hate speech" that is offensive but not violent that people want to prosecute, I have an issue with that.


  • BoganBogan 203 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Dee blathered.   "Right got that , so film , food , political , social ,artistic critics are all indulging in hate speech ……gee thanks for the heads up mate"

    Excuse me?    Where in my above post did I link "film, food, social, artistic critics" in "hate speech?"     If you think that you possess the wit to engage in debate, could you try submitting reasoned arguments to counter your opponents views, instead of just ambiguous sneery one liners?      People who continuously respond with sneery one liners are not debaters, they're just hecklers.  

    Tell ya what ma-a-a-a-ate. (sorry, bud-dee), I will show you how it is done.      It is possible that your obviously low IQ could benefit from some education?

    Throughout history, totalitarian regimes have enacted strict censorship on topics which they consider to be a threat to the regimes continued existence.    As a supposed liberal, you are supposed to understand that, and to support free speech.    But you have a problem with that noble idea..         Because you have been brainwashed by your left wing teachers to think that all races are equal, and you are trying and failing, to create a utopian multicultural society which is based upon what you insist is the fundamental truth of racial equality.   Racial equality is a BELIEF which you think is carved in stone and must never be questioned.    Of course, since the wheels are coming off your utopian multicultural society, then instead of switching on your critical analysis circuits and impartially examining all data, (which is what intelligent people do) you instead demand that free speech be limited to exclude those inconvenient bits of free speech that you do not want held up to the light and examined.     It is no different to totalitarian regimes claiming that they support free speech, so long as you do not criticise the Dear Leader, the Fuehrer, Creationism, The Word Of God, or the Party.

    Another word for "hate speech" is "heresy."   If you really think that heretical opinions must never be discussed, then face the fact that whatever you think you are, you are no intelligent, socially progressive liberal.      
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100


    Sure, screaming gas all jews isn't discourse, (however it isn't going to harm anyone either than possibly the person who does it so it should not be banned) but saying that all jews should be gassed is.

    Of course screaming “gas all Jews “ won’t harm them says every bigot alive , your idea of discourse is “gas all Jews”  I know that you’ve admitted your hatred of Jews many times 

    As I said, being mean does not make something untrue,

    Wow ! Thanks for that searing “insight “ I know the Holocaust happened 

    when you ban people from saying things for any you inhibit that which is necessary for truth to prevail, 

    Why ? Who’s doing that ? Why what’s the “truth “ that needs to “prevail “ in “gas all Jews to death”?


     newsflash, truth is not always nice

    I kinda know that but thanks for the heads up 

    , finding the truth matters much more than having a nice society.

    So again what’s the truth to be found in “gas all Jews to death “?

    You keep saying I'm racist as if it proves me wrong, no it doesn't,

    You are and yes you’re wrong along with your buddy David Icke regards Holocaust denial

    even if it were true it wouldn't prove me wrong,

    The Holocaust happened so yes you’re wrong 

    it would prove me unkind,

    Yes to deny to Jews the Holocaust never happened is unkind , this seems a difficult thing for you to grasp

    which you seem to think is more important than truth,

    You deny the truth with your hero David Icke it’s a historical fact the Holocaust happened 

    your mentality is the antithesis that one that a decent civilized society is based off of.

    Well yes I believe the Holocaust happened and the mark of a “decent civilised society” to you is Holocaust denial,

    Go back to your safe space while the rest of us try to find out what is true or not without worrying about hurting our little feelings.

    My space is very safe which is why I don’t need a gun to feel safe from big bad boys who might shoot me boo hoo , also bet you wish all the slaughtered kids from mass shootings had a “safe place “ 

    But your little feelings are always hurt you never stop whining about all that’s wrong with the US 


    Still no sign of your long list , are you a bit red faced over your lies ? 

    You went on a solo rant trying to prove Americans have more free speech than most when they don’t you’ve swallowed a myth 

    Now instead of dodging can you supply the long list of things I cannot say ?.. but at least it's not like Europe, where there is a long list of things you can not say out of fear of being arrested or fined
  • Is hate a freedom or liberty?

  • In any case, I don't like term term "hate speech." It's like morality; it's all very subjective. What may be hate speech to one person is not hate speech to someone else. It's a bit like asking "should make morality illegal."



Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch